General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
A couple of people providing high quality feedback were indeed shouted down during the open playtest at paizo.com; some of these people, namely those otherwise frequenting the GamingDen forum, were also vocal about that fact. What isn't true, however, is that all posters providing negative feedback were excluded from the actual feedback circle (as in, them making an impact on the final game).
If we're thinking about the same people, I can think of at least one of them who got the treatment he got substantially because of his posting attitude and tone. The content, divorced of a particularly abrasive posting style, could have generated a far different debate from what ensued.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
All that I can say is that I saw more Tieflings and Dragonborn played in the first 5 months of 4E than I saw Gnomes played in 14 years of D&D. 4E also marks the first time I've seen somebody play a Gnome character as anything but a punchline.
I'm sorry if Gnomes in the PHB was sacred to you, but when you combine my experience, other experiences posted on forums, and TSR/WotC's previous treatment of Gnomes, Gnomes being sacred was a real corner case opinion. The opinion that Gnomes needed to be in the PHB simply because they've always been there doesn't outweigh the fact that nobody really played them.
That's your opinion. Don't expect everyone to share it.
Really,
So when TSR killed off the gnomes in Darksun (and actually used to use that as a point in FAVOUR of selling the setting), said that gnomes don't exist in Brithright and that the Mists refused to take gnomes (and mentioned that gnomes didn't even exist in the Masque of the Red Death setting) this _WASN'T_ an insult to gnome fans?
When Dragonlance and Spelljammer only used the "crazy inventors to be treated as jokes" gnomes and Lantan in the Realms was regularly mocked by even hardcore FR fans/authors as "not really part of the Realms", this was TSR showing gnomes the LOVE?
Wow....if that's appreciation, I hate to see what you call hate.
I'm sorry if Gnomes in the PHB was sacred to you, but when you combine my experience, other experiences posted on forums, and TSR/WotC's previous treatment of Gnomes, Gnomes being sacred was a real corner case opinion. The opinion that Gnomes needed to be in the PHB simply because they've always been there doesn't outweigh the fact that nobody really played them.
They're not sacred to me. But I can empathize with people who were insulted or irritated by WotC's teasing and I think I can understand why they were.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Context is important. People have been playing gnomes since at least the beginning of 1e and now the race was being demoted from the main PH. Tieflings were being promoted. The ribbing thus becomes colored by teasing on the way up and a kick in the pants on the way down.
You might see that as a demotion, but from my perspective (never having seen a gnome played for anything but a joke), they were promoted in 4E from something that never saw use in my games to a legitimate monster that I can see all kinds of ways to use.
And I think you're reading too much into it. It was ribbing. I don't know why so much more is read into it.
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
So when TSR . . . said . . . that the Mists refused to take gnomes (and mentioned that gnomes didn't even exist in the Masque of the Red Death setting) this _WASN'T_ an insult to gnome fans?
(Quote edited to limit it to Ravenloft, the only setting I really know.)
Cite, please? My copy of Domains of Dread says that "Among the demihuman races of Ravenloft, none is more scarce or misunderstood than the gnome," but they are there. Indeed, the DoD description plays up not only their sense of humor, but their love of learning and loyalty to those who have earned their trust.
And Masque of the Red Death is Gothic Horror-style Victorian Earth. No demihumans exist there.
Actually, WotC seems big on selling every new edition as a quantum leap forward--I remember someone from staff (I think it was a designer on the AOL Greyhawk boards, but I wouldn't swear to it) saying he'd never go back to 2E after getting a shot at 3E back when it was in development, and there's anecdotal evidence from William W. Connors that at least some folks were willing to 'fire the fans' back then too.
Last edited by Matthew L. Martin; 7th September 2009 at 06:57 PM..
I've been in marketing for 11 years now, and one thing we've learned, is that no matter how you do something, whether you are right or wrong, its ultimately the customer's perception that matters.
The fact that we're still debating these same issues about the marketing after more than a year proves that.
Regardless of the method of marketing WoTC used, the fact remains they still have the perception among some that the marketing was bad/insulting/etc. (even if the marketing was in fact brilliant, which I'm not necessarily saying)
Is it possible that they could have avoided this perception and still got their message across? Maybe. Hindsight is always 20/20.
I have to admit, I found the marketing to be less than stellar, and at times, I felt some of the insult, but looking back with a slightly different perspective, I can see how I misinterpreted some things.
Surely we can agree that there is/was room for improvement?
(Quote edited to limit it to Ravenloft, the only setting I really know.)
Cite, please? My copy of Domains of Dread says that "Among the demihuman races of Ravenloft, none is more scare or misunderstood than the gnome," but they are there. Indeed, the DoD description plays up not only their sense of humor, but their love of learning and loyalty to those who have earned their trust.
.
I could've sworn I was remembering rightly that gnomes were NOT taken by the Mists explicitly.
It might just be me mixing up the lore with the discussions I remember from the old kargatane website pre 3e.
I think what has hurt 4th edition was actually 3.5e. Between editions was a good five to ten year run between editions. Everything was spaced out long enough so that the books, supplements, novels, etc. maintained the customer's interest.
3.5 ruined it in that respect because a whole new quasi-edition was created within three years after the start of 3rd edition. And then, 4th edition emerged about five years after that. For customers who were used to a long stretch between 2nd and 3rd editions this decision for a revised edition must have seeded doubt, as the various editions between the beginner's set and 2nd edition had seeded doubts in TSR's ability to continue the brand.
Now the marketing aspect certainly did not help matters. But you could only do so much to cover or gloss over bad decisions that were made.
But, as Windjammer has so eloquently put it, customer relationship mistakes have made the situation far worse than it could have been. Such mistakes could have killed other companies in other industries.
So really, it boils down to two elements: company decisions and how companies view and treat their customers.
I was unaware that there were people who didn't make fun of gnomes, until I encountered this attitude on the internet. I thought that was why we had gnomes. I thought their whole point was to be ridiculous and the butt of jokes. I thought that was the whole reason gnome fans liked gnomes- because they're funny and you can laugh at them.
And now they're gone. Or at least, relegated to being fey ninja halflings tucked into the Monster Manual who turn invisible in much the same way some lizards lose their tails. Comments about the "sacred gnome" are off-base. Clearly, different designers of D&D at various times have struggled with defining what a gnome was. Nonetheless, AD&D has always had the gnomes, less staid versions of the pick-toting dwarves with illusion spells and more reclusive but congenial personalities. At times they may have been presented in a ridiculous way, but they have long-time been a part of the D&D milieu. I remember, when I was a wee lad playing Red Box D&D, being perturbed that the D&D gods had granted gnomes to players of AD&D but not the basic set. There was a gnome illusionist in the AD&D miniatures set, along with a gnome thief-illusionist. Now that gnomes have been made over (to wingless pixies, essentially), you would have to go back to every D&D product that featured a gnome and replace 95% of them with something else. While every setting treated gnomes differently, all were clearly humanoid creatures with resemblances to humans and other humanoids. Gnomes are one of those creatuers that actually has roots in the culture outside D&D and its more specific influences. Unlike, say, a dragonborn, they do not have as compelling a visual hook and really rely on designer love to be appealing to a lot of people. 3e seemed to have trouble doing something with the gnome.
So bringing use back to the issue at hand. Gnomes were excised for page count. They were cut because they did not generate enough revenue to justify an extra one or two pages in the main book. Despite that WoW, that mutant offspring of D&D, features gnomes as a popular race, despite the gnome love of many Krynn fans, and so on, and so forth, the gnome was cut. Ok, that happens. You cannot make space for everything. Even though I personally would have tried to find a place for gnomes, for continuity's sake, I can respect that decision.
Let's get back to the marketing campaign. The message in a nut-shell: "Gnomes are useless because no one wanted to play them." So if you liked gnomes, you were "no one," and if you like playing them, you like playing something that is useless. Ouch. So then people started to grumble. Wotc came back with, "Well, they're in the monster manual." Then, later, "Here's a funny cartoon that portrays gnomes as something useless and vacuous that no one plays. Haha. Don't worry, you won't even miss them."
Let's review a few of the intended and unintended messages of that cartoon.
- Gnomes are squeaky, stupid dorks who feel good about being sidelined into being monsters. They are so stupid, they are actually happy not to be in the PHB. It is good they are not in the PHB and that the stupid gnome is happy.
- It's funny when gnomes die.
- If a playable race isn't popular with the largest segments of the D&D buyer, it isn't worth having.
- Things are monsters because they are intended to be slain. Logically, a gnome cannot then be something which you would not slay.
- Edgy, sociopathic tieflings are better than gnomes.
- Gnomes look like halflings. You wouldn't want to play a stupid, beardless halfling would you?
And let's review the PHB situation at that time:
- Gnomes out, tieflings and dragonborns in.
- Any setting with gnomes either has to lose the gnomes or else customize something for that setting to be a "gnome" which is not the MM gnome.
- Similarly, to cover the PHB options, all settings now need an ancient race of dragon people and a fallen empire of fiendish casters.
- Illusions are saved for a rainy day.
- The nature race is now the elf.
- Actually, you can forget about thief-illusionists for now, since multiclassing has been nerfed-by-unsupport for the time being and illusions are for later.
So not only have basic assumptions been rewritten so that your home campaign now needs tieflings and there is no gnome, but if you wanted to play a thief-illusionist, whether a nature lover or a slightly impish craftsman, there really is not much left for you. In 4e, you might go with a half-elf wizard with skill training. And if you waited long enough, illusions did come back... sort of.
But this is funny, right? The gnome is just a particularly innocuous target in a broader theme: start a new campaign, your old one is obsolete. "Enjoy your half-elf wizard, lol."
In some ways, the marketing of 4e still has to move up.
Having some things in Dragon that are essentially ads for upcoming product? Not a terrible loss to the reader of Dragon but a loss to the person who doesn't subscribe who you'd WANT to know about these things.
Claiming that you couldn't find a way to do a boxed set for an adventure when numerous other companies have? Hint, don't say you're doing a boxed set in the first place. (And if I'm wrong here and the Giants book has changed back to a boxed set with counters, I'll be happy to be wrong on that count.)
I think what has hurt 4th edition was actually 3.5e. Between editions was a good five to ten year run between editions. Everything was spaced out long enough so that the books, supplements, novels, etc. maintained the customer's interest.
3.5 ruined it in that respect because a whole new quasi-edition was created within three years after the start of 3rd edition. And then, 4th edition emerged about five years after that. For customers who were used to a long stretch between 2nd and 3rd editions this decision for a revised edition must have seeded doubt, as the various editions between the beginner's set and 2nd edition had seeded doubts in TSR's ability to continue the brand.
There could have been Hasbro corporate stuff behind the scenes which eventually led to 3.5E, which may have been significantly toned down (or almost absent) during the TSR era.
Working in a publicly traded multinational corporation setting could be quite different than working in a small or medium sized privately owned company.
Last edited by ggroy; 7th September 2009 at 08:37 PM..
When I first heard of 4e, I was exited, although I had been an avid suporter of 3.5. And looking back at the marketing they did, I think they presented a good amount of information about how 4e would look like.
I did and do not have a problem with the fact that they pointed out the flaws of 3.5 and how they tried to fix those in 4e. In fact, I agreed with almost all of them and I see how 4e has changed those issues to the better.
Having said that, I could not agree more to those who say that they could have toned down some of the negative remarks on 3.5, no matter how much I agreed with them. I remember either Mike Mearls or David Noonan saying in one of their podcasts that he would not be willing to play 3.5 anymore now that he had been playtesting 4e for quite some time.
Now, as a normal player or normal DM, one could say something like this. I would have said something like this in some sort of nerdish affection. But as somebody who represents WotC in an official podcast, it makes poor marketing IMO, because it might alienate those who would be willing to try 4e out although liking 3.5 despite its flaws.
Then again, Mike Mearls and David Noonan are not the marketing team, but designers. But judging from the podcast, they are as nerdish sometimes as all roleplayers that I know (me included) get. And they might not have thought about the effect their comments would have in todays internet.
Regarding Paizo, I do feel, after lurking through many many threads on ENworld that a lot of people seem to think this company seems more altruistic than WotC. A lot of people seem to forget that Paizo made money with another company's product and development which WotC gave away for free. Now, when WotC decides to take part of the "free" away, everybody gets all upset and trashes WotC for the GSL ("it should have been an OGL, not GSL"). And everybody seems to applaud Paizo for their "new" Pathfinder roleplaying game, when instead they should be on their knees, thanking WotC to produce 3.x and the OGL in the first place. They made Paizo and Pathfinder possible. In my opinion, it was a legitimate move not to produce another OGL, because the OGL only makes the competition stronger. And why would you want that?
It does not make WotC evil (I think that is what some people mean when they say that "the suits" have taken over). WotC is not the BBEG.
And 4e is a very fine product. DDI is much cheaper than buying the printed magazines here in Germany every month. Plus with all the added content, it does the right things for me as a DM.
(edited for spelling)
Last edited by TheFindus; 7th September 2009 at 09:32 PM..
And everybody seems to applaud Paizo for their "new" Pathfinder roleplaying game, when instead they should be on their knees, thanking WotC to produce 3.x and the OGL in the first place.
No - you mean, thanking Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison for the OGL, who are no longer with WotC. (And I *do* very much thank Ryan and Peter for the OGL.)
The WotC of today did not create the OGL, and deserve no thanks for it, IMO.
no - you mean, thanking ryan dancey and peter adkison for the ogl, who are no longer with wotc. (and i *do* very much thank ryan and peter for the ogl.)
the wotc of today did not create the ogl, and deserve no thanks for it, imo.
No - you mean, thanking Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison for the OGL, who are no longer with WotC. (And I *do* very much thank Ryan and Peter for the OGL.)
The WotC of today did not create the OGL, and deserve no thanks for it, IMO.
Aww, come on. Or are you trying to be funny? The rules did not belong to these two people, it was the company's decision to do the OGL and allow others to use the rules for free. Dancey and Adkinson pushed for it, sure. But the company (including Hasbro, maybe) did not have to go along with them. Did the company good to do it, though, since 3.x sold very well (I do not want to start a discussion if WotC have done a new OGL, this is not the thread for that).
However, if you are really unwilling to give the company any credit at all, at least include Skaff Elias.
That's your opinion. Don't expect everyone to share it.
I don't expect people to share my opinion.
But I do expect them to be good-humored and not overly-sensitive about the things they enjoy (for instance, opera, D&D, NY Giants football). Or, more precisely, I think it's beneficial to a person to be good-humored and not overly sensitive about the things they enjoy.
Reverse this and see how it shakes out. Is it ever good thing for a person to be humorless and overly-sensitive about the things they enjoy?
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
My girlfriend loves gnomes. When she first started playing D&D it was a gnome that she wanted to play. She does not play her as a practical jokester or comic relief but instead as a serious academic (albeit one who looks just like a garden gnome). I have been running a campaign for her character for a little over three years now. She loves her character.
She has no real knowledge of TSR or other campaign settings or how gnomes have been portrayed. She is a very casual gamer; she only owns enough books to play her character but did buy a lot of books for me. She tends to get a little frustrated with the complexity of the 3.5 rules from time-to-time. She is exactly the kind of person WotC should have marketed 4e to.
And yet she refuses to try the game. Why? Because of how they treated the gnome. The one thing that she loved about D&D was being mocked. It didn't matter to her that the tiefling was also being mocked in that video. In her mind it was her character that was sitting up there - it was her character that was the joke. I certainly don't blame her (or anyone else) for feeling offended by that.
Ah, the conundrum why Paizo can get away with marketing moves that WotC can't.
Here's the answer. It's not product marketing, it's customer relations.
Its the product too, but yes customer relations helps alot. Its why games workshop has a crappy reputation with many of its fans where as privateer press can get a pass in the miniature game world.
Customer relations always helps. Its not the only thing.....but it helps.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
